Arrested under the Comstock Act –

Arrested for mail fraud under the Comstock Act –

970 words

State of Texas v. Dr. Jones, NYC Doctor over violation of Comstock Act Revision 2025

         Judge: Dr. Jones, the State of Texas is charging you with willfully violating the terms of the Comstock Act of 1875, which states:

         “criminalized the mailing of any 'obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance,' as well as any 'article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use.'" Congress in 2026 enacted a revision to that law, updating its provisions to include mailing any products designed to facilitate abortion. You are charged with mailing to clients in Texas anti-abortion medication in violation of that act. How do you plead?

         Dr. Sydney Jones rose to speak. He had just celebrated his 50th year of practice in NYC, was one of the top abortion doctors in the country, and had long been active in efforts to fight against the revival of the Comstock Act.

         "Not guilty, Your Honor."

         Mr. James Lee, the leader of the prosecution team, was a longtime Republican operative linked to the pro-life movement played a key role in Texas by suing doctors nationwide for sending abortion pills, contraceptives, and related information to Texas residents.

          He rose and declared.

         “The State of Texas has filed this lawsuit against Dr. Jones and others to enforce the updated Comstock provisions, which also allowed states to take actions in Federal court to order compliance with its provisions. The Supreme Court ruled. Recently that those provisions are constitutional, and so we filed suit against Dr. Jones and his association of pro-life doctors in New York who have openly been advertising online, offering their products for sale after a sort of video teleconference, which is also contrary to both state and federal laws that do not allow for telemedicine consultations regarding dispensing of abortion medication and contraception. However, this action in
this case is limited to whether his actions constituted a willful violation of the Comstock Act of 1875, and the 2026 addendum to the Comstock Act, upheld by the SC in their recent decision. His online advertisements boasted of helping. hundreds of women over the years to safely terminate their pregnancies both in his clinics and through mail-ordered anti-abortion medication, including 300 citizens of Texas where abortions are illegal.

         Since there is no federal law regarding abortion access, local law applies and Dr. Jones violated Texas law and the provisions of the Comstock Act. Recently, we might add that the USPS has announced that they will no longer allow delivery of such products and we understand they will file additional charges against Dr. Jones, but that is for another court to decide.”

          Mr. Jones’s defense attorney, Maria Lee, was a longtime reproductive rights movement activists, and had been through numerous trials. Although she gave a spirited well-regarded defense, and her team often, given that most of the judges and senior government officials were right-wing extremists who did not take kindly to her defense of people whom they deemed to be tools of Satan, as Mr. James Lee had described in a notorious podcast that went viral a few years back.

         The Judge, Ralph White, was a conservative Black judge recently elected and was known for his right-wing rulings and for being hostile to anyone challenging the authority of the courts or the Texas Republican-controlled state government.

         Maria Lee rose and said, "The defense maintains that providing abortion materials on demand of clients anywhere in the US is not illegal since doctors are required to provide services deemed medically necessary. We also dispute the characterization of anti-abortion medicine as 'obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance,' noting that there is no common law definition of what this means in practice. In contemporary American society, women and men by and large believe that the decision to have a baby rests with the mother, her family, and her doctor, and the government should not be involved. In all of these cases, the women contacted Dr. Jones after finding out they were pregnant, often after a rape or incest committed against them, which, sadly, they found is no longer a legal exception. Texas’s draconian law is on its face 'obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter,' and violates most international norms of basic human decency. The proponents of the law, the judge in this case, and the prosecutor in this case are all self-proclaimed Christians who violate daily all the basic Christian principles in their constant war against women who dare to challenge the rights of men to rape and abuse them. Christ, if he came back, would denounce them and their actions. I stand with these women and against the evil men who wish to punish women for the crime of thinking that they should be the ones to decide what happens to their body."

         The prosecutor rose and demanded that Maria Lee be censured for her insulting comments and be held in contempt of court.

         The judge ordered her to spend five days in jail for contempt of court and have her words stricken from the record. Her words were captured online by activists and went viral. Hundreds of supporters showed up every day in front of the courthouse demanding that she be released.

         When she returned, she made a "non-apology " apology that satisfied the judge and the trial proceeded. Dr. Jones was found guilty on all counts and ordered to return to Texas for sentencing. The governor of New York declined extradition. The SC ultimately decided the case and Dr. Jones, then 75 years old, was given a five-year prison sentence. Maria Lee was disbarred under Texas law for continued contempt of court.

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/how-the-comstock-act-threatens-abortion-rights...


\